Posted on 06/10/2024 7:52:55 AM PDT by RandFan
A Reform UK candidate claimed the country would be "far better" if it had "taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality" instead of fighting the Nazis in World War Two.
Ian Gribbin, the party's candidate in Bexhill and Battle, also wrote online that women were the "sponging gender" and should be "deprived of health care".
In posts from 2022 on the Unherd magazine website, seen by the BBC, he said Winston Churchill was "abysmal" and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A Reform spokesman said the comments were not "endorsements" but "written with an eye to inconvenient perspectives and truths", while his remarks about women were "tongue in cheek".
Mr Gribbin declined to comment.
In July 2022, Mr Gribbin posted on the Unherd website: "Britain would be in a far better state today had we taken Hitler up on his offer of neutrality…. but oh no Britain’s warped mindset values weird notions of international morality rather than looking after its own people."
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Right idea, wrong war. Britain would be better off today had it been neutral in WW1.
The sticking point is Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in 1914. That drew Britain in. Then every nation’s ego kept the slaughter going for four long years.
It was a choice of either the Soviets, or the Germans, controlling Eastern Europe
We chose the Soviets.
Hitler was opposed to invading England after Dunkirk, in part because his desire was to reach an accord with England in which England would be left alone to control its existing possessions and Germany would be left alone to maintain control of the European mainland.
The UK was the “Ukaraine” of the day and Lend Lease was an appropriate policy. Though we damn well knew we weren’t going to get anything we lent back.
Should the UK have been neutral? The biggest problem wasn’t possible neutrality but the Munich agreement, allowing Germany to militarize the Rhineland and all the steps that were missed before Poland was actually invaded.
I get that Europe had its fill of war after 1918 and 20 years later was in no mood to do it again. However an aggrieved Germany disagreed.
Britain was never going to be allowed to be neutral. The United States had war declared on it by Germany before we declared war on them. Half history lessons are unlearned history lessons.
Those V1 and V2 rockets and bombs from planes were not neutral...
A distant relative of mine was killed in his own backyard...
The time to be neutral was 1914.
The sticking point is Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in 1914.
Because of France’s idiotic alliance with Russia. France just didn’t like the ‘New Kid On The Block’.
Agreed—World War I was the disaster that created the horrors to follow.
The problem is that because Hitler broke his pledge after Munich, he simply could not be trusted to keep his word.
In World War I the royal families and oligarchs played “power politics” using their average citizens as pawns—very dirty business.
“Neutrality” with Hitler would have meant what???
It was O.K. for Hitler to Annex Austria?? It was O.K. for Hitler to occupy Czech lands he had agreed not to do in the 1938 Munich agreement with France, Britian and Itlay?? It was O.K. to invade Poland??
What exactly would “netrality” with Hitler have meant and would Hilter ever have thought neutrality of Britain meant anything other than a green light for anything he wanted to do.
Is the author so ignorant to believe that if Britain had only declared it was “neutral” that Hitler would have not done all the bad things he did??
Hitler got sucked in by Von Ribbentrop, who hated the English, after he felt mistreated by them when he was German ambassador to Britain.
I don’t want war. All I want is peace. Peace. Peace!
A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France
A little piece of Portugal and Austria perchance
A little slice of Turkey and all that that entails
Und then a piece of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales
A little nip of Norway, a little spot of Greece
A little hunk of Hungary, oh what a lovely feast
A little bite of Belgium and now for some dessert
Armenia Albania and Russia wouldn’t hurt
A little piece of Poland, a little piece of France
A little piece of India and Pakistan perchance
Hitler’s word meant nothing. After all, he promised peace if he’d just be given a slice of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland. And we all know what happened afterwards.
So I can’t imagine he’d leave the British Isles alone. He’d make a grab for them once his navy was strong enough. Napoleon was playing with the same idea. (Admiral Nelson put an end to Napoleon’s plan at Trafalgar.)
In World War I the royal families and oligarchs played “power politics” using their average citizens as pawns—very dirty business.
And the end result was almost a worldwide Bolshevik Revolution. It was actually much closer to becoming a reality than people want to think.
There’s a lot of ways that could have gone, so there’s no way to know if it would have been “better”.
Would Japan have still attacked the western powers? Would America still industrially support the Soviet Union?
As shown in WWI, it’s unlikely that GB would have turned its back on its commitments.
There's been some new scholarship on WWI regarding Britain's reasons for war. One factor that shocked me because it seemed so unthinkable for Britain. Fear of an Army coup due to the Royal Army's and others anger over Home Rule for Ireland. Going to war on the continent would focus the Army elsewhere.
There's rarely one single reason for war.
Once the United States expanded its presence in the Pacific after the acquisition of Hawaii and The Philippines, we had to rely on The Royal Navy to guard the Atlantic. That’s why we were never really “neutral” in the Two World Wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.